Date of filing :25.11.2020 Date of order :12.02.2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 517 OF 2020 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 273 OF 2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : OSMANABAD.

1. Maharashtra State Electricity ...Appellants Distribution Company Ltd,. (Adv.P.S.Mehta)

Through its Executive Engineer, 2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Through Dy.Executive Engnieer, 3. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Through Assistant Engineer, R/o Upale, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad.

VERSUS Vikaram Shamrao Padwal. ... Respondent R/o Upale, Tq.and Dist.Osmanabad. (Adv.A.R.Barate)

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 12/02/2026)

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Osmanabad in C.C.No.573/2018 whereby, the District Commission directed the appellants to pay compensation to the respondent of Rs.5,11,194/- for burning his sugarcane crops and set of drip irrigation system in his agricultural land along with Rs.3,000/-

as the costs of the proceedings within 45 days of the order.

2. The respondent is the agriculturist having agriculture land Gat No. 923 situated at Mauje Upala Dist.Osmanabad. At the relevant time he cultivated sugarcane crop in the said land. The total area of cultivation was 6 acre. For the purpose of irrigation he had installed drip irrigation system of Rs.5,11,194/-. In his agriculture land he had obtained the electricity connection from the appellants. There was loop/curve in the electricity lines overhanging the field. There was frequent sparking in the two wires. He drawn attention to the same but the appellants did nothing. On 01.04.2018 at about 3 p.m. there was a spark in the eastern part of his field and the same fall down on the dry grass. Due to the wind the fire spread out and his 3 months old sugarcane crop and drip irrigation system along with mango and teak plant burnt completely. In the incident loss of Rs.9,00,000/- occurred to him. He lodged the police complaint. The Panchanamas came to be drawn by the police as well as revenue authorities. The Electrical Inspector gave his report stating that, in the D.P.box thick wire was used as fuse and therefore, sparking took place and the incident occurred. The respondent asked for the compensation but not considered favourably by the appellants. Thus, he filed the above referred Consumer Complaint before the District Commission in which the impugned judgment is passed.

3. The stand taken by the appellants before the District Commission was that, since the respondent has not been given electricity supply from the line, where the incident of fire took place, he is not the consumer of them. It is also contended that, the panchanamas drawn by the Tahasildar and police are not proper and without following the due process as the appellants was not given any intimation of the panchanamas. The panchanamas so prepared were prepared after 5 days of the incident and are not admissible. As such, the appellants prayed the District Commission for the dismissal of the complaint filed by the respondent.

4. The District Commission however, not agreed with the above defence of the appellant. The District Commission recorded the finding that, the electricity bill produced by the respondent on record goes to show that, he is the consumer of the appellants. It is also recorded by the District Commission that, the report of the Electrical Inspector clearly mentioned that, the incident of fire took place because of the negligence of the appellant in maintaining and repairing the electricity lines. The panchanamas prepared by the various departments of the Government including the Revenue Department proved to the satisfaction that, the loss of Rs.5,11,194/- has caused to